|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 07:40:13am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Actually, it's because we all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies.
And we know that an undeclared war of terror being waged in Pakistan by the current Administration is the picture definition of Unconstitutional.
Right alongside the picture of "Violation of 1973 War Powers Resolution Act" for our "non-hostile" committment of forces and action in Libya.
Because dropping GBUs, shooting cruise missiles and providing helicopter gunship support isn't hostile if you issue an Executive Order saying so.
Some people make bad choices? Others make worse choices.
Having to choose between Romney and Obama is like having to choose between contracting syphillis or gonorrhea.
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 08:42:59am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
So is the idea here that Obama is an enemy, or am I misreading your post?
Your gripe about the "undeclared war of terror" and the WPA does nothing to explain why veterans and military members vote Republican. I would actually think that would be something that would make Republicans warm to Obama. Or have the Republicans suddenly turned into international-law-abiding doves ready to cede US authority to international bodies? Educate me..
I don't know about you, but even if I had to choose between syphilis or gonorrhea, I would still make a choice.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 09:23:09am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
He signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law on 31 January 2011. You know, the law that allows Americans to be detained indefinitely in violation of the Constitutional right to due process. Why is the left not apoplectic about this? Why are the Occutards not marching on DC? Because as long as they get their free shit, they are quite comfortable having their Constitutional rights stripped from them. Until they aren't.
You tell me.....actually to be fair, I fault Congress even more for allowing the NDAA to be drafted and passed. I flatly reject the "well that section was just very poorly worded" deflection. Rewrite it then to make it crystal clear you assholes.
Also note that nowhere in my post do I refer to Republicans or Democrats. You are both one and the the same. You both support special interests on the backs of the middle class. YOU.ARE.IDENTICAL. Veterans, retirees and Active Duty all know that....
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 09:50:53am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Sorry, I thought we were talking about why vets lean Republican. I guess I was mistaken.
Obama's record is mixed to be sure. Presidents seek to expand presidential power -- that's an organizational interest, not a political one. Congress handed him power and he took it. And no, I don't forgive him for that.
However, Romney frightens me infinitely more than Obama. I feel like I "get" Obama -- whereas I have no idea what drives Mitt Romney. Look, the guy basically wrote off half of the US population, saying that it was his job not to worry about them. At least Obama stands by his record -- is honest about it. Romney doesn't seem to have any principles at all. He'll say anything, do anything, to get elected. Period.
I don't feel like our political system really grants us the luxury of casting a protest vote for the presidency. One of two people will be the next president. Voting for Gary Johnson might make you feel all nice inside, but means nothing.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 10:00:30am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Back to the original discussion then.....
From my experience and the people I served with and maintain contact with, vets and Armed Forces tend to lean right because they understand the process (and potential consequences) of committing forces intimately - much more so than the average American. The sense is that historically Republicans seemingly favor the military more. There is a perception that Democrats - being historically anti-war - are at best ambivalent towards veterans or Active Duty. Yes, I realize that that is not necessarily the case. I could point to many examples that support drawing the above conclusions. With a little digging, I could find examples that are 180 degrees out.
What I don't understand is why the average servicemember doesn't seem to understand that both parties exploit the military for their own gains - be they political or financial. Both Repubs and Dems feed at the same Mil Indust Complex feeding trough....it's just that most Dems seem to wear a mask when they belly up.
I don't know what to tell you other than we have been collectively horse fucked by both parties. You may think that a vote for a candidate outside of the two party handicap we have had forced on us is a throwaway that only makes me "feel all nice inside but means nothing", but you couldn't be more wrong.
By accepting the constraints of a a failed two party system you are validating it with your acceptance of two 'for shit' choices. You only need about 10% of a population to "get it" to reach a tipping point of awareness. Once that happens, the exponential function takes over and neither of the two parties will be able to hold the wave back. I'll consider myself lucky if I see it in my lifetime, and until such time as it happens, I will continue to vote for the candidate who aligns best with what I consider the important issues.
That my friend means everything.
Regardless, I still think it's pretty cool that despite our clear differences on where we lie on the political spectrum, we can have this discussion....politely and respectfully. I'd have no problem having this convo face to face over a beer at Devil's Backbone Brewery next Columbus Day weekend at Festy Experience 4.
You just better like IPAs.......
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 11:04:42am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Mmmmm... IPAs.
"You only need about 10% of a population to "get it" to reach a tipping point of awareness. Once that happens, the exponential function takes over and neither of the two parties will be able to hold the wave back."
To this, I would submit two examples:
1) The Tea Party has at times boasted of the support of nearly one in three Americans. I think it's still close to 20%. Why are they not fielding a candidate? Where is the "exponential function" effect?
2) Ross Perot.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 11:27:10am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
1) The Tea Party over promised and underperformed. Perhaps 1 in 3 Americans had heard of of the Tea Party, but outright support? Clearly that was not the case. All the blathering from the Bat Fastard Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding.
2) Pulling >10% at a poll is one thing. 10% of an entire population sample set understanding an issue is completely different.
Malcolm Gladwell, author of "Tipping Point" does a much better job of sorting out and explaining the impact of Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen.
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 11:41:29am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Around 18% of Americans consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party. Something like four in ten voters said they supported the TP movement in 2010 midterm exit polls.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 12:00:46pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
But did they understand the issues? That drives change. Cheerleading does not.
If 10% of Americans truly understood the implications of our debt based, fractional reserve monetary system and banking industry there would be a revolution tomorrow. (Parapharsed somewhat from some famous old dead guy)
Instead, "I'll get to it right after I get caught up on Jersey Shore"
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 12:15:10pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Given the issues that seemed to drive support for the Tea Party, I'd say that they most definitely did not understand them. They didn't even understand that those weren't real issues.
Revolutions need leaders, and leaders need ideas that normal people can relate to. I don't see much of that out there right now.
|
Poster:
|
Deadhead225 |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 07:29:12pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Read Creature From Jekyl Island by Griffin (1st edition recommended as it was pre-financial crisis with no opportunity to point to any revisionist history) and Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. The combination of these two with Gladwell will be all you will ever need to know about the monetary/political system. Objective historical perspectives that illustrate near identical patterns to modern events. No party, central bank or Govt. can successfully manipulate markets or economic forces. The harder they try the deeper in trouble they get. Once the $ runs short enough things always tend to get worked out. It just means there is fuel for the attempted manipulation. It aint pretty, but it gets worked out.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 11, 2012 07:54:59am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
I've read Creature, but not Shales and it's funny, I suppose, I came to a different conclusion about the ability of an unregulated central (debt based) banking system to manipulate the market(s). Perhaps not in the classic sense of bubble creation like Greenspan did, but certainly as spiral consequences of "fiscal policies".
I do agree with you on "It ain't pretty, but it gets worked out."
I just see it more likely that it gets worked out via failed policy and systemic collapse rather than successful policy.
Getcha popcorn ready, it's gonna be an interesting couple of years.
|
Poster:
|
deadhead53 |
Date:
|
October 11, 2012 08:23:59am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Hey Mando,
I agree with you on all your topics but I hope it does not come true. Both the Dems and Repubs suck, they both use their base to keep their power but anyway I am writing to thank you for your recomendations when I was in VA beach this summer, they were excellent between you and some others my family and I ate like Kings and Queens and enjoyed our vacation there, so much so that we are planning to come back down next summer. I should have posted this much earlier so I apologize for not doing this sooner and when I got back Football season started (I coach at the HS level) and life became very busy but Thanks again! have a great weekend and let's hope this "gets fixed" but I don't think either Romney or Obama can fix it, I especially think Obama can not! but who knows maybe I am wrong!
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 11, 2012 12:35:07pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Glad you enjoyed the visit. Given enough advance notice we can plan to have a beer or two or a dinner next summer. As long as it's not at the end of July when I will be encamped at FloydFest XII!!
|
Poster:
|
deadhead53 |
Date:
|
October 11, 2012 12:59:30pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Sounds like a plan Mando!
|
Poster:
|
Finster Baby |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 06:46:21am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
both the dems and the reps love that you, and millions of others, feel this way.
Lets them know that what ever slop they run out there, people will vote for it out of fear of "wasting" their vote on a 3rd party candidate.
|
Poster:
|
snow_and_rain |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 07:12:52am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Oh? And just who will you be wasting your vote on this year? Gary "I-won't-take-drones-off-the-table" Johnson? Good luck with that. I used to think the Greens could do it, but I'm not so sure anymore. The system we have is stacked against them. If you want third parties, you'll need to change the system first.
But let's assume for a minute that the system was more amenable to third parties. Even in that case, third parties that do nothing but field weak presidential candidates with no policy ideas and who have no plan for how they would actually govern the country do not interest me. The only way to create a lasting third party movement in this country is to grow it from the ground up. Even the Tea Party -- the closest thing we've had to a TP in recent memory -- basically had no platform except to eliminate all government revenue. Good luck running the show without any money! And even those "ideas" (if you can call them that) have pretty much been absorbed by the Republican Party.
|
Poster:
|
unclejohn52 |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 07:45:14am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
"The only way to create a lasting third party movement in this country is to grow it from the ground up." A difficult achievement, but I agree - the only route here is for the people to rise up and assert their need for a change in the process.
In addition to the limitations to the Tea Party that you noted - I have a real issue with their agenda, the shady "corporate" support, and a barely disguised, ugly racial undertone... tendrils of these issues are interwoven with the Repub party.
|
Poster:
|
Edsel |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 09:18:53am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
horse shit, all the ugly racial undertones were coming from liberals accusing them of having racial undertones. I'm no member of the TP, so don't even try to go there.
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 10:09:33am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire - adding more fuel |
Whether shit floats or sinks, it's still shit and it still stinks the same.
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.htmlRobert Byrd or Thomas Sowell?
Yeah, I know, make your sample group small enough and you can prove anything you want to.
Blatant racism exists in both mainstream parties. the Tea Party is no exception, but it is not as widespread as the media would have you believe.
But someone, anyone, please explain to me how Senator Robert Fucking Byrd, D-WV, self-admitted KKK Kleagle, and the party that embraced him as the "conscience of the Senate" got a pass from the media?
|
Poster:
|
Mandojammer |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 11:07:10am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire - adding more fuel |
I would need to see the raw data used in the sample set to assess whether or not the two studies could stand up to real academic scrutiny.
My Occam's Razor gut tells me that right or left, the media presents what it wants to, regardless of the facts.
|
Poster:
|
Edsel |
Date:
|
October 10, 2012 11:57:50am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire - adding more fuel |
"They want to put ya'll back in chains".
Racism and fear mongering at its finest.
|
Poster:
|
SomeDarkHollow |
Date:
|
October 09, 2012 10:33:54am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: Looking for some political fire |
Like choosing between contracting syphillis or gonorrhea?
I must disagree with you on that comparison. Either implies that you at least had a lot of fun first.
TVNews
OpenLibrary